Justice Roberts’ tortured reasoning on Obamacare

One component of President Obama’s January 2010 State of the Union address was his deliberate dress-down of Supreme Court attendees concerning their Citizens United decision.

The act was unprecedented, petulant and juvenile — and certainly beneath the comportment of a president. But, then, Obama has never been encumbered with decorum.

Incongruously, Obama was unaware of the ally he would gain in Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.

Roberts concluded in his 2012 pro-Obamacare vote that Obamacare’s mandate is a tax — as opposed to falling under the Commerce Clause. That conclusion agreed with Obama’s Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

The decision is arguable and troubling because Obama promised from the beginning Obamacare is not a tax, then sent Verrilli off to argue the opposite.

Whatever his stance, Roberts seemed to hint he was onto the game, stating: “It is not our job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Verrilli’s performance was dismal, but Obama’s side won, blasting the nation’s health insurance and health care systems into chaos.

Inexplicably, Roberts’ June 2015 pro-Obamacare vote is wholly irrational considering multiple facts he had to know.

Roberts purported concern that halting designed Obamcare subsidies would harm insurance markets, and six million people would lose coverage. Roberts said: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them.”

None of those contentions resonates with facts.

Six million already-insured people lost their coverage with Obamacare, aggregating the proclaimed 47 million uninsured. They, plus the health care markets, private plans and employer plans/benefits became pandemonium.

Secondly, “Congress,” as a body, did not pass Obamacare. Passage lies only and solely with the Democrats. Not one Republican voted “yes.”

Inarguably, Obamacare was written sloppily however Roberts chose to inject invisible words “or by the federal government” to the precise expressly written language (exchanges) “established by the states.”

He claimed the addition averts “…the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at Libertarian think tank Cato Institute, cites The New York Times report “… the White House lent him (Gruber) to Capitol Hill to help congressional staff members draft the specifics of (Obamacare).”

Gruber bragged, “I know more about this law than any other economist.”

Good to know considering Gruber’s later statements:

(2011) “There’s a lot of responsibilities on the states to set up these (exchanges) … to regulate them and run them;

(2011) “If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens doesn’t (sic)” get their tax credits”;

(2012) “It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,”;

(2013)”They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference;

(2013) “This bill (ACA) was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score it as the (sic) mandate as taxes”; if it did, “the bill dies”;

(2013) “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” and “the stupidity of the American voter. …”

In 2013, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded, “I don’t know who he is” and “he didn’t help write our bill”; shortly thereafter, she said Gruber “sometimes consulted” and he testified “only once” before the Senate.

USA Today Fact Check differs.

The Washington Post confirmed Pelosi cited Gruber’s work seven times on her leadership website in November 2009. Further, Gruber testified three times in 2009: May 12, June 11 and Nov. 3.

Obama’s first response on Nov. 12, 2013, to Gruber’s candidness was his automatic default position: “I just heard about this.”

Nope.

The House Oversight Committee investigation found emails solidifying links between Gruber and the White House. In 2009, Gruber wrote of his invitation to “meet with the head honcho … about cost control.”

The White House and its operatives all knew of Obamacare’s grand plan — so grand they immediately exempted themselves from it (Daily Caller 8/2/13; National Review 8/6/13).

Space limitations prohibit reporting the vast amount of information gleaning the deceit perpetrated on the “stupid” Americans for this travesty called “Obamacare.”

Roberts has proven that expressly written verbiage is worthless, and most unfortunately SCOTUS judges can selectively make laws — an act our Constitution intended to prevent with the separation of powers.